Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds that a null classId removes the class link, clarifying the destructive edge case, and that unmatched essays are returned. It doesn't disclose whether automatic matching overwrites existing links or other side effects, but adds useful context beyond annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three focused sentences: linking purpose, matching behavior, and unlink case. No wasted words, front-loaded with the core action. Could be slightly more structured but efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given a mutation tool with a nested matches array and an output schema (presumably for unmatched essays), the description covers purpose, matching logic, and the unlink case. The output schema means return format needn't be explained. Missing details on error handling or rate limits, but complete for the core use case.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 67% schema coverage, the schema documents classId and sessionId origins and constraints. The description clarifies the behavior of classId=null (unlink) and the match resolution logic for the matches array, adding meaning beyond the schema's structural details.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (links) and resource relationship (grading session to workspace class) with the purpose (feed class insights). Distinguishes itself from siblings like add_students or create_grading_session by describing the linking action and its two-stage matching process.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explains the automatic matching via exact roster-name matches and the manual matching via essay/student handles, and notes that a null classId removes the link. Clear context for when to use, though it doesn't name alternative tools or explicitly state prerequisites beyond referencing list_classes and get_grading_results in the schema.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.